neutral in swtch box

[mryan]

Do you need one ? I was told it is code Makes no sense

 

[Ponchik]

According to 2011 you do, with some exceptions.

But if you are still under the 2008 you don't.

 

[Volta]

404.2(C).

Lighting loads fed from a grounded general-purpose branch-circuit.

For switching devices that may be installed in the future that may use a neutral.

 

[Strummed]

Do you need one ? I was told it is code Makes no sense

It's simply more of the NEC ruling issues that they shouldn't be involved with, while doing it under the guise of "safety". This change was probably lobbied by the cable manufacturer.

Soon we will have to pull all #12 romex in a house just in case someone comes in later and installs a 20A breaker :roll:

 

[Hv&Lv]

It's simply more of the NEC ruling issues that they shouldn't be involved with, while doing it under the guise of "safety". This change was probably lobbied by the cable manufacturer.

Soon we will have to pull all #12 romex in a house just in case someone comes in later and installs a 20A breaker :roll:

I saw it as inevitable with the advance of many of the home automation systems and lighted switches.

 

[Strummed]

I saw it as inevitable with the advance of many of the home automation systems and lighted switches.

Why? The NEC is specifically not supposed to be a design manual. Although it breaks that virtue way too often.

If the job wasn't speced for those upgrades when it was built, then they could have an electrician do it later.

How far should we go to support future upgrades? And why should the NEC govern that when it's clearly not a safety issue?

FWIW, my understanding of the reasoning why it was adopted is because low voltage installers were putting devices into switchboxes that required neutrals so they were bootlegging the neutral from the ground. I think that is ludicrous. There's a million other things that hackers could do, should we cater to all of them?

BTW, my anger is at the NEC and my recent purchase of expensive 14-4 romex, so please don't take my post as yelling at you.

 

[mjf]

404.2(C).

Lighting loads fed from a grounded general-purpose branch-circuit.

For switching devices that may be installed in the future that may use a neutral.

Yes, it is a design issue, which the NEC is not supposed to care about. The NEC does not require me to wire and install provisions for a dishwasher in a kitchen that doesn't have one just because someone might want to installone at a later date.

 

[Hv&Lv]

Why? The NEC is specifically not supposed to be a design manual. Although it breaks that virtue way too often.

If the job wasn't speced for those upgrades when it was built, then they could have an electrician do it later.

How far should we go to support future upgrades? And why should the NEC govern that when it's clearly not a safety issue?

FWIW, my understanding of the reasoning why it was adopted is because low voltage installers were putting devices into switchboxes that required neutrals so they were bootlegging the neutral from the ground. I think that is ludicrous. There's a million other things that hackers could do, should we cater to all of them?

BTW, my anger is at the NEC and my recent purchase of expensive 14-4 romex, so please don't take my post as yelling at you.

I understands your frustration, but another example would be 314.17(c). I just put them up there because you never can tell what a homeowner may want later. Besides, I get paid for it whether they use it or not.
FWIW, I have been in circumstances where I wished for a neutral in a switchbox. I have never wished there wasn't one.

 

[Strummed]

I understands your frustration, but another example would be 314.17(c). I just put them up there because you never can tell what a homeowner may want later. Besides, I get paid for it whether they use it or not.
FWIW, I have been in circumstances where I wished for a neutral in a switchbox. I have never wished there wasn't one.

The problem is that the customer doesn't want to pay the extra for stuff like this, it's simply one more thing pushing people towards not pulling permits and using unlicensed hacks.

I think the analogy I gave at the beginning is pretty accurate: should the customer have to pay for #12 to every device just in case someone wants to come in later and install a 20A breaker?

 

[mjf]

I understands your frustration, but another example would be 314.17(c). I just put them up there because you never can tell what a homeowner may want later. Besides, I get paid for it whether they use it or not.
FWIW, I have been in circumstances where I wished for a neutral in a switchbox. I have never wished there wasn't one.

I've been providing neutrals in my switchboxes for several years and I'm on the 2008 code so they're not required. I will continue to provide them but I still say it is a design issue.

Does the NEC require a neutral at a straight 220 water heater?...someone someday might install one with some new fangled energy saving control sensor that requires a neutral.

 

[Hv&Lv]

I've been providing neutrals in my switchboxes for several years and I'm on the 2008 code so they're not required. I will continue to provide them but I still say it is a design issue.

Does the NEC require a neutral at a straight 220 water heater?...someone someday might install one with some new fangled energy saving control sensor that requires a neutral.

Design issue? probably. But one could argue that most of the NEC rules are design issues.

 

[Strummed]

Design issue? probably. But one could argue that most of the NEC rules are design issues.

And that there is the problem...

From 90.1(B)

The Code is a safety standard, not a design guide.
NEC requirements aren?t intended to ensure the electrical installation will be efficient, convenient, adequate for good service, or suitable for future expansion. Specific items of concern, such as electrical energy management, maintenance, and power quality issues aren?t within the scope of the Code.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

It was not a proposal from the copper people. It was a response to an issue that had been caused because the standard for occupancy sensors and other types of electronic switches permited the swith electronics to use the EGC as a grounded conductor...that is they would put a small amount of current on the EGC to power the electronics. The standard limited the current to 1/2 mA per switch. The issue is a shock hazard for someone working on the EGC between the switch and the power source. There is a shock hazard when the EGC is opened. UL said they would not change the standard to prohibit the use of the EGC as a grounded conductor unless the NEC required a grounded conductor at the switch locations.

 

[mjf]

It was not a proposal from the copper people. It was a response to an issue that had been caused because the standard for occupancy sensors and other types of electronic switches permited the swith electronics to use the EGC as a grounded conductor...that is they would put a small amount of current on the EGC to power the electronics. The standard limited the current to 1/2 mA per switch. The issue is a shock hazard for someone working on the EGC between the switch and the power source. There is a shock hazard when the EGC is opened. UL said they would not change the standard to prohibit the use of the EGC as a grounded conductor unless the NEC required a grounded conductor at the switch locations.

UL can just create unsafe standards????

Someone at UL made a mistake in approving these devices???

Instead of making the manufacturers develop a safer product they demand that the NEC gets changed???

Interesting.

 

[Strummed]

It was not a proposal from the copper people. It was a response to an issue that had been caused because the standard for occupancy sensors and other types of electronic switches permited the swith electronics to use the EGC as a grounded conductor...that is they would put a small amount of current on the EGC to power the electronics. The standard limited the current to 1/2 mA per switch. The issue is a shock hazard for someone working on the EGC between the switch and the power source. There is a shock hazard when the EGC is opened. UL said they would not change the standard to prohibit the use of the EGC as a grounded conductor unless the NEC required a grounded conductor at the switch locations.

It doesn't matter what UL says, the NEC can prohibit the use of the EGC as the neutral.

I still say the cable companies lobbied this.

 

[iwire]

It doesn't matter what UL says, the NEC can prohibit the use of the EGC as the neutral.
.

It already does but it can't control how equipment is designed.

I still say the cable companies lobbied this

And you would still be mistaken, this stuff is public info that can be found in the ROPs.

 

[Strummed]

It already does but it can't control how equipment is designed.

It doesn't have to.

I can put 50 amps of current over a #14 wire, and UL could say this is fine, but the code stops me from doing this. The code doesn't require that I install #6 everywhere "just in case". So what logic is there to installing a neutral "just in case" someone else wants to break the code in the future?

And you would still be mistaken, this stuff is public info that can be found in the ROPs.

Yeah, ok, cause NOTHING ever goes on behind the scenes by people lobbying :lol:

You also can't give a college basketball star any compensation, but their mom always finds herself in a new house and sports car :thumbsup:

 

[don_resqcapt19]

It doesn't matter what UL says, the NEC can prohibit the use of the EGC as the neutral.

I still say the cable companies lobbied this.

Yes the NEC can, but as far as I know, does not specifically prohibit using the EGC as a grounded conductor. Even if there was a specific rule to that effect, enforcement would be difficult.
There could have been lobbying, but I don't think so based on some information directly from a CMP member.

 

[RustyShackleford]

At least two states, Massachusetts and North Carolina, I believe, have amended the 2011 NEC to allow common-sense exceptions to the rule about neutrals in switchboxes - and it wouldn't surprise me if others follow. Search one of the other recent threads about this issue.

 

[MarineTech]

For new construction, in addition to AC power, I see the Engineers having to address Home automation (which to me includes energy efficiency), Computer networks, Phone circuits and Video (Coax). The complexity really depends on the overall home requirements. When I look at the Neutral switch question, the topology (layout) of 3-way and 4-way switch circuits, is designed to have a "running" neutral, at the expense of many conductor NM, to support efficiency devices (sensing, timers and turn off).

I find myself having to determine the best routing approach for "low voltage" (data, phone, video) in relation to AC power. Which is addressed in Articles 800 and 820. If Optical Fiber is used then also 840.